The LOGIC as to why gay marriage should be ILLEGAL

[MoonLancer]

Okay if your son had been raised by 2 moms instead would he be better for it or no? Same for a daughter with 2 dads. The child needs the nurturing warm fuzzy, kissy, huggy from mom, the discipline and strength from dad. I raised 1 girl 2 boys with a dad in the house. My perspective and my husbands was different for my daughter. I said she could talk on the phone to a 19 year old(she was 15 at the time). After all just talking right. My husband saw it a lot differently...he was once a boy right? He said one thing always leads to another. Needless to say he severed ties real quick where I probably wouldn't have. It takes a Mom and a Dad.

i take offense to your sexist attitude.

 

[JGG]

We have kids killing kids for a lot less than being teased for parentage. Are you willing to prove yourself right by bringing an innocent life into a world intentionally knowing that it probably won't be accepted because of your lifestyle. There's a lot of cruelty out there. You want a perfect world sorry but is what it is.

Let me get this straight. If a child of gay parents is killed by a bigotted bully, you're claiming that the blood of that child is on the hands of the parents for being gay in a society that does not accept gays?

 

[b&wpac4]

We have kids killing kids for a lot less than being teased for parentage. Are you willing to prove yourself right by bringing an innocent life into a world intentionally knowing that it probably won't be accepted because of your lifestyle. There's a lot of cruelty out there. You want a perfect world sorry but is what it is.

Alrighty. I live in Virginia and I am converting to Judaism so that my fiancee and I can raise our family Jewish. There's a chance that my children may not be accepted because of our lifestyle and how it will be different from the majority Christian neighborhood. Does that mean I should not have children?

 

[PassionFruit]

Okay if your son had been raised by 2 moms instead would he be better for it or no? Same for a daughter with 2 dads. The child needs the nurturing warm fuzzy, kissy, huggy from mom, the discipline and strength from dad. I raised 1 girl 2 boys with a dad in the house. My perspective and my husbands was different for my daughter. I said she could talk on the phone to a 19 year old(she was 15 at the time). After all just talking right. My husband saw it a lot differently...he was once a boy right? He said one thing always leads to another. Needless to say he severed ties real quick where I probably wouldn't have. It takes a Mom and a Dad.

Why does the mother have to be all "warm and fuzzy" as you put it? What if the mother is far more capable than the father to show discipline and strenght? What if the father is capable of being more nuturing?

The intentions of the situations you speak of were with both mom and dad in mind. not one without the other. Of course things happen in life we do not expect. Single mothers are always looking for someone to be a Dad to their children same thing with single Dads. I believe the child who was not raised with a mom or dad is always looking for that someone to fill the void.

I take offense to this because coming from a single parenthood home my mother wasn't concerned with finding someone to be a father to me and my siblings. She was focused on being raising us and had done a fine job at doing it.

Single parents aren't always searching for someone to parent their children, because at times there's no need for them to do so, especially when they are perfectly capable of raising their children by themselves.

 

[Mling]

I think that being raised by a loving and committed couple even if the couple is same-sex is better than being raised by the foster care system.

And this is what it comes down to. Or, at least, this is what that specific point comes down to.

I have worked with a gay couple who adopted pre-teen children (the youngest was 6 at the time she was adopted. The others were 8 and 11 or so).

The kids were *terribly* damaged by their time in foster care. In the sense that they had lost the ability to bond with other people and were on the road to growing up to be sociopaths. Filled with rage and no sense of what to do with it.

Movies like "Orphan" are extreme examples of this sort of disorder, but it really does exist, and I've met a few of them.

Being adopted by this couple was probably the best thing that could have happened to them. They starting bonding, started learning how to control their tempers, got structure, support and understanding.

Straight people, on average, do not adopt children like this.

Gay people have already needed to tweak their definition of family, and so, in my experience, seem much more willing to adopt older kids, kids who are of minority races and kids who aren't completely healthy.

There's a level of appalling arrogance in declaring that children who have been rejected by their biological families and potential heterosexual families should *continue* to be denied the care they *could* benefit from, just because you don't like the people who may well be most equipped to give it.

What did these kids do that they deserve to be told, "Yes, I know that there are people out there who could help you...but I don't care. Politics are more important than your life" ?

 

[neutronium_alice]

People making these arguments presume a lot - for example, that they have an understanding of political organization, theory, philosophy and economy as well as a vast knowledge of present social organizations and the motivations of presently existing people. Because whenever you say, "they should make a law..." that is exactly what you're saying you know.

Now ask yourself: do you? Because it wasn't insanity or demonaical possession that made Stalin, Hitler or Robespierre (for that matter Napoleon Bonaparte) possible, it was hubris and demonaical devotion to making the world a better place.

 

[nolongerhome]

People making these arguments presume a lot - for example, that they have an understanding of political organization, theory, philosophy and economy as well as a vast knowledge of present social organizations and the motivations of presently existing people. Because whenever you say, "they should make a law..." that is exactly what you're saying you know.

Now ask yourself: do you? Because it wasn't insanity or demonaical possession that made Stalin, Hitler or Robespierre (for that matter Napoleon Bonaparte) possible, it was hubris and demonaical devotion to making the world a better place.

It is arguable that all the people you listed had any interest in making the world a better place - they had an interest in increasing their own power...

But I am interested to hear your view on whether or not same sex marriage should be legal?

 

[Chazemataz]

Okay if your son had been raised by 2 moms instead would he be better for it or no? Same for a daughter with 2 dads. The child needs the nurturing warm fuzzy, kissy, huggy from mom, the discipline and strength from dad. I raised 1 girl 2 boys with a dad in the house. My perspective and my husbands was different for my daughter. I said she could talk on the phone to a 19 year old(she was 15 at the time). After all just talking right. My husband saw it a lot differently...he was once a boy right? He said one thing always leads to another. Needless to say he severed ties real quick where I probably wouldn't have. It takes a Mom and a Dad.

This is a hypothetical so don't get offended, but what would you do if one of them came out to you?

 

[JustMeSee]

I see where you're coming from and I don't think that is a bad thing to look for. Children being raised by two loving and committed parents is great. In fact, I will even go out on a limb (take away my liberal card! ) and grant you that children being raised by two loving and committed parents where one is male and one is female is the optimal situation.

But (you saw that "but" coming, didn't you?) the optimal situation isn't always available. People can die; people can find their personal problems overcome their love for each other and their children; people can't keep up the facade that they are heterosexual when they are not.

What do we do then? Adoption is an option, but there are not enough couples willing to adopt--especially if the child is older; especially if the child has problems.

We are left with sub-optimal solutions. Some of those sub-optimal solutions are better than others. I think that being raised by a loving and committed couple even if the couple is same-sex is better than being raised by the foster care system.

I will argue your point. You use the term 'optimal'. The optimal environment does not always exist even in mom-dad families. We are talking about real people with various flaws. Some women (regardless of sexual orientation) are not the best parental role models. Either they don't fit the classical gender role of being affectionate and nurturing, or they suffer from other issues (selfishness, absentness, drug/alchohol consumption, whatever). The same can be true for men. While it can be said that the optimal environment for a child is a biological mom-dad family, it is not always the best one.

I would venture to say that children fair far better in a loving, functional homosexual parent family than a biological dysfunctional family.

While I agree that all children should have strong role models of both sexes, they don't necessarily need to be a mother and father.

 

[fated]

Then you don't have a logical qualm against the current system.

"But some of them won't have children."

But they might, by and large they will. In a very few cases they are very unlikely to, such as with elderly people.

This is unnecessary reductionism.

Ah, well, I hope that someone who actually understands logic is listening. I pray and hope that they are, because if there is someone here who is writing me back who does, they've obscured themselves.

The logic of the actual gay marriage argument is:
Yes, but they're male and female, a you're clearly talking about MM and FF couples, they're clearly different.

This is where the disconnect from actual equality occurs. The court admits this, but because gays are defined by the court as a protected class, it was believed that marriage was necessary to help them get their statistics more similar to married people.

Now, look, you can sit and chant about my being illogical, but, at the end of the day, it was clear to court that there is certainly logic here. And it is certainly also connected to procreation.


And, if it is merely your assertion that the culture doesn't care, then there should be a popular vote, not a court decision to make the determination.

Anyway, peace out gay philosophers, maybe send me someone to talk to next time. __________________

 

[fated]

I did seek some gay related material, created during this period, which was positive, but found nothing substantial. It's always about hate and discrimination, even while seeming to admit other logic might exist like when one "comes out of the closet." Even the quote in the main stream was a shaming attack... and Obama's proposed that contrary logic does exist, even though he disagree with it. To bad I can't get that same concession on this thread, we might be able to have a discussion.


And I would like to than Stephen Colbert for the interview with the Congressman from CO on 8-17.

The most important thing... it seems, to point out in this discussion, is the need to get rid of ignorance and encourage more open minded thought.

What we have is a situation divided between people wanting children at the center and other philosophies, some of which are undoubtedly malignant, and others that are not, at least, intentionally so.

 

[JustMeSee]

Fated, you have lost me in your logic. You seem to be typing random thoughts.

This has been asked by numerous people in this thread, and you have failed to respond.
Once and for all,
WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE?
How do expect to have an intelligent discussion when you introduce opinions, but fail to expound upon them.

 

[CaDan]

Then you don't have a logical qualm against the current system.

"But some of them won't have children."

But they might, by and large they will. In a very few cases they are very unlikely to, such as with elderly people.

This is unnecessary reductionism.

Ah, well, I hope that someone who actually understands logic is listening. I pray and hope that they are, because if there is someone here who is writing me back who does, they've obscured themselves.

The logic of the actual gay marriage argument is:
Yes, but they're male and female, a you're clearly talking about MM and FF couples, they're clearly different.

This is where the disconnect from actual equality occurs. The court admits this, but because gays are defined by the court as a protected class, it was believed that marriage was necessary to help them get their statistics more similar to married people.

Now, look, you can sit and chant about my being illogical, but, at the end of the day, it was clear to court that there is certainly logic here. And it is certainly also connected to procreation.


And, if it is merely your assertion that the culture doesn't care, then there should be a popular vote, not a court decision to make the determination.

Anyway, peace out gay philosophers, maybe send me someone to talk to next time. __________________

I don't get it.

Our society does not limit marriage to only demonstrably fertile couples, nor do we create a "separate but equal" institution for them. We allow post-menopausal women to marry, for example.

 

[FlamingFemme]

I don't get it.

Our society does not limit marriage to only demonstrably fertile couples, nor do we create a "separate but equal" institution for them. We allow post-menopausal women to marry, for example.

You're absolutely right, and I don't get his 'logic', either. So far, we have 24 pages of posts, and not one single solitary logical reason to prohibit gay people from marrying their same-sex partner.

To be honest, most of my reasons for wanting gay marriage legal are completely emotional in nature, as this is my life we're talking about here. As it is, I can be married in my state, which is wonderful. However, the federal governament does not recognize my marriage. This creates problems in many areas, starting with filing our taxes. It gets complicated. Even worse, even though we're married at the state level, I cannot put my wife on my health insurance (nor can she put me on hers), because if I did, she would have to claim that health benefit on her federal taxes as income (and vice-versa for me). We own a house together, pay income, property and excise tax, contribute to our community by volunteering, and raise our child to be a responsible member of society. I just don't see how that's any different than any otherr straight married couple with kids.

But, emotional reasons aside, logic seems to point toward legalizing and recognizing same-sex marriages, as opposed to prohibiting them.

 

[nhisname]

This is a hypothetical so don't get offended, but what would you do if one of them came out to you?

I don't understand your question. Please clarify.

 

[Supernaut]

I don't understand your question. Please clarify.

I believe Chaz is asking what you would do or say if one of your own children "came out of the closet"? Hypothetically speaking.

 

[Chazemataz]

I don't understand your question. Please clarify.

I'm asking if one of them told you they were gay or bi. How would your react?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To RevSJamison,

I believe Chaz is asking what you would do or say if one of your own children "came out of the closet"? Hypothetically speaking.

I would be disapointed if my own child said they were into stealing, lying adultery etc. But if I thought stealing lying and adultery and same sex relations were ok I probably wouldn't be bothered, would you?

 

[MoonLancer]

lol, homosexuality is akin to lying stealing and adultery?

 

[CoderHead]

The child needs the nurturing warm fuzzy, kissy, huggy from mom, the discipline and strength from dad. [...] I said she could talk on the phone to a 19 year old(she was 15 at the time). After all just talking right. My husband saw it a lot differently...he was once a boy right? He said one thing always leads to another.

What a bold assumption that fathers aren't warm and fuzzy with their kids! I hug and kiss my kids all the time. I'm a little less observant sometimes than my girlfriend, who notices discipline problems and points them out - both for my kids and hers. So in some cases the roles are reversed, meaning your first argument is invalid on a predefined gender role switch.

Secondly, having two adult authority figures in the house, regardless of their sex, lends itself well to oversight where one will have a reasonable veto power over the other at any given time. Your example demonstrates a naive attitude toward adolescent relationships. There's no reason a 15-year-old girl should be spending time talking to a 19-year-old boy. You should have known that, even without having been a teenage boy.

Single mothers are always looking for someone to be a Dad to their children same thing with single Dads.

Wow, another (possibly even more) bold assumption! There are plenty of single mothers who have no intention of finding someone to be a dad to their kids. They love their kids and focus their efforts on raising them and providing for their needs. Why do they need a dad?

But they might, by and large they will. In a very few cases they are very unlikely to, such as with elderly people.

But you're not talking about popularity, you're talking about a specific definition, which you've still failed to provide. If elderly and infertile couples can get married and still be within your definition, then it's not logical to exclude homosexuals.

This is unnecessary reductionism.

Again with this word. I suspect you're saying it because you feel it makes your argument more rational.

The logic of the actual gay marriage argument is:
Yes, but they're male and female, a you're clearly talking about MM and FF couples, they're clearly different.

Ummm, what?

Now, look, you can sit and chant about my being illogical, but, at the end of the day, it was clear to court that there is certainly logic here. And it is certainly also connected to procreation.

Show me where the courts have said that in order for marriage to be valid, the potential for offspring must be present. Please.

The most important thing... it seems, to point out in this discussion, is the need to get rid of ignorance and encourage more open minded thought.

What we have is a situation divided between people wanting children at the center and other philosophies, some of which are undoubtedly malignant, and others that are not, at least, intentionally so.

Not wanting children is malignant? Who, exactly, in this conversation is the one with a closed mind? You have your preconceived notions and are completely unwilling to budge on a stance that is, at this point, unclear and undefined. We're suggesting that all humans should be afforded the same opportunities and you're saying that it's perfectly OK to discriminate against groups of humans because...well, I don't know why??

May we please have your definition of marriage? Please?
​